On other threads we were talking past one another. Several posters thought I was here to prove that God exists. Instead, I came to address the question that is the title of the site "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"

It's a very good question. I'd like to rephrase the question and I hope you'll not find it abusive to the original intent. "If God is real and has the capacity to show himself, why hasn't he done so?" The following answer is copied from my blog (www.eatnails.net). I added some navigation to help contextualize.

Quote

This is an important question. Remember that I said relativistic mechanics had to satisfy two requirements. The first was that the speed of light be constant in all frames as observed by Michelson and Morley. The second was that it give the same results as Newtonian mechanics in those situations where Newtonian mechanics is well-tested. We cannot accept a theory that predicts something we have observed to be untrue.

For example, if my sources of spiritual truth tried to convince me that most people experience God in very direct and visible ways nearly every day, I would have to be very suspicious of them because neither I nor anyone I know experiences God in that way. The truths learned via our new spiritual epistemology cannot contradict our observations. So, we must reconcile the existence of spiritual things with their apparent absence from our daily life. If our spiritual epistemology tells us God is real, it must also explain why we don’t see Him.

I have found what I regard as a satisfactory answer to this. I think it is inescapable that God wishes not to be seen. But he must have a reason for wishing so. It begins with an understanding of faith. In the Bible, faith is described as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” It’s easy to see that, if God were visibly present in your life, you could not have faith in Him. That is not to say you wouldn’t need faith in Him. I mean only that it’s impossible to have faith, according to the scriptural definition, in something that is seen. So, one reason for God to remain hidden is to enable us to have faith.

That seems very silly circular logic if you think the only reason for faith is to gain access to truths about God, heaven and our eternal nature. But, faith is a principle of power. Having and exercising faith in things that are not seen empowers us to master ourselves and become more like God. The process of hoping and waiting on the Lord in faith strengthens the part of us that has access to spiritual truths. Weight training would seem equally silly if you thought the purpose of lifting the barbell is to put it back on the rack. It’s only when you understand the principles behind building muscles that the whole process makes sense.

One important extension of this is the conclusion that a person is (morally) more than the sum of his or her knowledge. This probably comes as no surprise. Two people with identical knowledge of God can be at vastly different levels when it comes to living in harmony with His teachings. And, this is not limited to spiritual knowledge. Atheists as well have all sorts of principles in their head which they do not, and indeed I would say cannot, adhere to. Knowing a principle and applying that principle are two very different things.

So, in the opinion of this fizixgeek, there is a lot to be learned about our journey to spiritual knowledge and power in the analogy with humanity’s journey toward fizix knowledge. If some of the above didn’t make much sense, if make help to read this earlier post.

No, you were purposefully ignoring responses and expecting people to instead gives you scripted answers for which you can use to follow into your next claim. However, many responses contradicted not even the questions you asked by the premises you have to hold in order to ask those ridiculous questions. This isn't 'talking past one another', this is instead you dishonestly refusing to engage in open discussions/debate.

Quote

Several posters thought

Strawman, no one thought you were here to do anything. Nothing about what other posters think has anything to do with what you are here to do. Nothing about what they thought has anything to do with how your conducting yourself now or your claims thus far.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

Quote

"If God is real and has the capacity to show himself, why hasn't he done so?"

Nothing int he following text answers the question.

Quote

This is an important question. Remember that I said relativistic mechanics had to satisfy two requirements. The first was that the speed of light be constant in all frames as observed by Michelson and Morley. The second was that it give the same results as Newtonian mechanics in those situations where Newtonian mechanics is well-tested. We cannot accept a theory that predicts something we have observed to be untrue.

This has nothing to do with the question.

Quote

For example, if my sources of spiritual

This is meaningless special pleading, that only begs the question:

What is 'spiritual' truth and how is it determined?

You seem to be unaware of what formal fallacies are so here let me help you out:

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

If you don't answer this criticism and elaborate upon this fallacy; then you are not conveying anything in an informative context to be understood. If you repeat your claim, you repeat your fallacy, without explanation. Your entire paragraph stems from this pleaded qualification, offered with no explanation and no information to accompany anything about it. Your entire paragraph can be dismissed as incoherent.

Quote

I think it is inescapable that God wishes not to be seen.

This is a blank unsupported assertion, something just made up at random without reference to how you know this or why you would believe it. Trying to reference the bible tells us nothing, doesn't convey anything more then just the blank assertion made above, and like the statement above pleading 'spiritual truth'.. you're entire paragraph can be dismissed out of hand. What this amounts to is a giant non-sequitur, a type of platitude of babbling non-informative superstitious claims.

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

Its also a type of fallacy called an argument from authority, in this case you're blank assertion is being deferred to the authority of the bible, let help you out with what an argument from authority is:

Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although it is possible for the argument from authority to constitute a strong inductive argument, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.[1][2][3]

In this case, you are trying to establish the bible as authoritative on what you can make up on a whim. None of the logic follows, the authority is baseless, and no explanation is ever given. Now, when I point this out, this is a direct criticism of a type of argument you are making. For some bizarre reason, you think this is an answer and it is not. When I elaborate on fallacies, I'm telling you what exactly is wrong with the answer. It is now your job to correct or account for those fallacies in a logical argument.

Quote

That seems very silly circular logic if you think the only reason for faith

Blank assertions, dismissing the rest as unsupported nonsense. See above.

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Fiz, what good are arguments for believing in things we can't detect if those arguments make it impossible to determine the difference between an existence where that thing exists and one where that thing doesn't exist?

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

This is an important question. Remember that I said relativistic mechanics had to satisfy two requirements. The first was that the speed of light be constant in all frames as observed by Michelson and Morley. The second was that it give the same results as Newtonian mechanics in those situations where Newtonian mechanics is well-tested. We cannot accept a theory that predicts something we have observed to be untrue.

For example, if my sources of spiritual truth tried to convince me that most people experience Santa in very direct and visible ways nearly every day, I would have to be very suspicious of them because neither I nor anyone I know experiences Santa in that way. The truths learned via our new spiritual epistemology cannot contradict our observations. So, we must reconcile the existence of spiritual things with their apparent absence from our daily life. If our spiritual epistemology tells us Santa is real, it must also explain why we don’t see Him.

I have found what I regard as a satisfactory answer to this. I think it is inescapable that Santa wishes not to be seen. But he must have a reason for wishing so. It begins with an understanding of faith. In the Bible, faith is described as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” It’s easy to see that, if Santa were visibly present in your life, you could not have faith in Him. That is not to say you wouldn’t need faith in Him. I mean only that it’s impossible to have faith, according to the scriptural definition, in something that is seen. So, one reason for Santa to remain hidden is to enable us to have faith.

Please seperate the above statement from yours without resorting to a logical fallacy.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

If you don't answer this criticism and elaborate upon this fallacy; then you are not conveying anything in an informative context to be understood. If you repeat your claim, you repeat your fallacy, without explanation. Your entire paragraph stems from this pleaded qualification, offered with no explanation and no information to accompany anything about it. Your entire paragraph can be dismissed as incoherent.

This would undeniably be special pleading if I were trying to prove God exists, which I am not. My post can be thought of as a constructive proof of the statement "There exists a self-consistent concept of God which allows for

1. The existence of God2. The absence of evidence for God's existence"

As such, I will not attempt to prove that this concept is true, just that it's consistent.

Quote

Quote

I think it is inescapable that God wishes not to be seen.

This is a blank unsupported assertion, something just made up at random without reference to how you know this or why you would believe it. Trying to reference the bible tells us nothing, doesn't convey anything more then just the blank assertion made above, and like the statement above pleading 'spiritual truth'.. you're entire paragraph can be dismissed out of hand. What this amounts to is a giant non-sequitur, a type of platitude of babbling non-informative superstitious claims.

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

Its also a type of fallacy called an argument from authority, in this case you're blank assertion is being deferred to the authority of the bible, let help you out with what an argument from authority is:

Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although it is possible for the argument from authority to constitute a strong inductive argument, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.[1][2][3]

In this case, you are trying to establish the bible as authoritative on what you can make up on a whim. None of the logic follows, the authority is baseless, and no explanation is ever given. Now, when I point this out, this is a direct criticism of a type of argument you are making. For some bizarre reason, you think this is an answer and it is not. When I elaborate on fallacies, I'm telling you what exactly is wrong with the answer. It is now your job to correct or account for those fallacies in a logical argument.

I apologize if I wasn't clear enough here. Perhaps I shouldn't have said, "I think." If I'd written the essay for you, Omen, I would have written it.

Quote

Granting my assumptions (for the purpose of the constructive proof mentioned above) that God exists and has the power to show Himself, it logically must follow that He wishes not to be seen.

This would undeniably be special pleading if I were trying to prove God exists, which I am not. My post can be thought of as a constructive proof of the statement "There exists a self-consistent concept of God which allows for

1. The existence of God2. The absence of evidence for God's existence"

As such, I will not attempt to prove that this concept is true, just that it's consistent.

What does pointing how that 'spiritual truth' is pleaded as a qualification without explanation, have to do with whether or not your arguing for god to exist?

Are you saying that you get to make up terms, as if they needed to be examined and considered, without ever telling anyone what they mean, how you determined their veracity, or anything else about them?

Is that what you think constitutes a valid argument for anything?

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

This is an important question. Remember that I said relativistic mechanics had to satisfy two requirements. The first was that the speed of light be constant in all frames as observed by Michelson and Morley. The second was that it give the same results as Newtonian mechanics in those situations where Newtonian mechanics is well-tested. We cannot accept a theory that predicts something we have observed to be untrue.

For example, if my sources of spiritual truth tried to convince me that most people experience Santa in very direct and visible ways nearly every day, I would have to be very suspicious of them because neither I nor anyone I know experiences Santa in that way. The truths learned via our new spiritual epistemology cannot contradict our observations. So, we must reconcile the existence of spiritual things with their apparent absence from our daily life. If our spiritual epistemology tells us Santa is real, it must also explain why we don’t see Him.

I have found what I regard as a satisfactory answer to this. I think it is inescapable that Santa wishes not to be seen. But he must have a reason for wishing so. It begins with an understanding of faith. In the Bible, faith is described as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” It’s easy to see that, if Santa were visibly present in your life, you could not have faith in Him. That is not to say you wouldn’t need faith in Him. I mean only that it’s impossible to have faith, according to the scriptural definition, in something that is seen. So, one reason for Santa to remain hidden is to enable us to have faith.

Please seperate the above statement from yours without resorting to a logical fallacy.

Exactly right. What I'm saying does not prove God exists any more than it proves Santa exists. Just because my system is self-consistent doesn't mean it's true. But can we agree that a system where God exists and you can't see God is self-consistent?

Are you willing to consider an alternate epistemology?You’ve lived your scientific and working life relying on a method for discovering truth—-the scientific method. You’ve come to rely on it to lead to predictive conclusions. But, what if there are additional ways of discovering truth—-alternate epistemologies-—that are equally reliable? Is that so inconsistent with your experience? Is there precedent for such things?

The scientific method did not arise on its own. It developed over centuries in the hands of great minds such at Aristotle, Ibn Al-Haytham and Rene Descartes. By the end of the European Renaissance, the scientific method was firmly established as the method by which scientists of all kinds found access to predictive truths. It was Auguste Comte that forwarded the idea that the scientific method is the only method for discovering truth. This is referred to as positivism. But, faith in the scientific method does not, by itself, preclude other methods of seeking truth. The fact that you’re holding a hammer doesn’t make everything a nail.

I’m going to discuss this with a parallel from the world of physics (fizix!). About the same time Descartes and Comte were rewriting philosophy and sociology, Newtonian physics was supplanting Aristotelian mechanics as the most reliable explanation of the physical world. For centuries to follow, scientists of all kinds built a vast and glorious scientific edifice on this foundation. Newtonian physics conquered on its merits. It was a more predictive system for describing the world.

Then came the Michelson-Morley experiment. The discovery that the speed of light is constant from any vantage point was in direct contradiction to Newton. Imagine traveling on a train and shining a flashlight straight ahead of you. If, to you, the light travels 300 million meters per second, then someone standing stationary next to the track should, according to Newton, see the light travel at 300 million meters/sec plus the speed of the train. As demonstrated by Michelson and Morley, this is not what happens. Both observers see the light travel at the same constant speed. It was clear, at least here on the fringes of physics, that Newtonian physics was inconsistent with observation.

Einstein’s special relativity restores sanity to our world view. Einstein sought and found an explanation of the universe that a) allowed for a constant speed of light in all frames of reference and b) reduced to familiar Newtonian mechanics at speeds much slower than the speed of light. Special relativity is not a band-aid on Newtonian physics that applies in certain situations. It is a fundamental rethinking of the nature of space and time. Newtonian mechanics is a subset of relativistic mechanics that applies in a subset of situations. Most of human experience is in this “subset,” but it’s an important distinction.

I believe the scientific method and a spiritual epistemology fit together in the same way. Our world is, in fact, a spiritual one just as it’s a special relativistic one. The spiritual explanation of the world is the right one. Your soul is eternal. There is a God who guides the universe. At the same time, science, as discovered via the scientific method, describes the world accurately in most situations, as Newtonian mechanics is right and predictive in most aspects of our life. Someone who doesn’t see the spiritual nature of the universe can be forgiven just like Newton can be forgiven for misinterpreting the nature of space and time and missing the special relativistic nature of the universe. He hadn’t made the observations that led to special relativity just as you have not had the experiences that lead to faith.

So, ask yourself whether there’s room in your thinking for an alternate epistemology—-for truths which are not available via the scientific method, but which are just as reliable. If so, there is a sure path to faith. At the end of it, you will be convinced that God exists and that you are an eternal and spiritual being.

An introduction to faith requires a few words of warning. A spiritual epistemology will embarrass you. It’s meant to be visible only to the sincere seeker. Unfortunately, a spiritual epistemology will not help you win any arguments. There are many religious persons who seek demonstrable proof of their faith. In my opinion, they seek in vain. You must surrender your need for “I told you so.” Because finding religious truth requires more effort than the scientific method, you won’t see public demonstrations as you do with scientific truths. However, a spiritual epistemology is reliable and repeatable and an equally acceptable avenue for discovering truth.

And, it’s simple. The steps to discovering a spiritual truth are as follows:

Be willing to follow the truth you find. Spiritual truth is not revealed to the purely academic seeker. Learn, and in some cases begin to apply, the knowledge you wish verify. Study religious texts. Use your scientific mind here, too. Greater minds than yours have considered these things and they didn’t break. Express to God your desire to receive confirmation of this knowledge. Even if you don’t believe anyone is listening or you feel silly, pray.

There’s a wonderful example of this from the Book of Mormon. In it, a king has been taught of God for the first time. He is taught the system I described above. Then, he prays the following prayer.

Quote

O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day.

This king received his answer in very dramatic fashion. We are not promised dramatic results. We are not even promised immediate freedom from doubt. But God has promised that He will give us knowledge if we seek it as He has outlined.

I’ve left a lot of business unattended to. My next entry will address some questions which an atheist might reasonably ask a believer in God including:

Why does God hide Himself?

and the age-old question

Why is there so much pain and ugliness in a world created by a loving and omnipotent God?

It is not self consistent, you've had several responses pointing that very thing out and you offered no explanatory response in kind. It is almost as if you don't even understand what is meant by what a logical fallacy is or the idea of logical negation.

You also didn't respond appropriately to Hatter, you seem grossly unaware of your own use of fallacies even when applied in analogy of another unrelated subject.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

This would undeniably be special pleading if I were trying to prove God exists, which I am not. My post can be thought of as a constructive proof of the statement "There exists a self-consistent concept of God which allows for

1. The existence of God2. The absence of evidence for God's existence"

As such, I will not attempt to prove that this concept is true, just that it's consistent.

What does pointing how that 'spiritual truth' is pleaded as a qualification without explanation, have to do with whether or not your arguing for god to exist?

I'm not arguing that I'm not proving that god exists. I'm just stating it. One more time, for good measure: I'm not proving that God exists.

Quote

Are you saying that you get to make up terms, as if they needed to be examined and considered, without ever telling anyone what they mean, how you determined their veracity, or anything else about them?

Is that what you think constitutes a valid argument for anything?

I am certainly saying that there's merit in considering this system, axioms granted, and asking whether it's self-consistent and consistent with observation. My post before this addresses how to validate the statements I'm making. It's more work than posting on an internet forum.

That in itself is contradictory, how is anyone means of 'knowing' compatible with a different means of 'knowing'?

Quote

But, what if

Begging the questions; can you demonstrate a means to determine truth using a differing epistemology or not?

Quote

I believe the scientific method and a spiritual epistemology

Begging the question: What is a spiritual epstemology?

How did you determine it?

Your 'belief' is irrelevant, a blank assertion of a vague determination you've made with no explanation.

Quote

babbling preaching

You're not even arguing for anything or answering the questions you want answered, the rest of your post offers no argument that can be understood or even logic that follows into any conclusions. You plead a new term and base everything upon what you plead into existence, then offer nothing to support it anymore then you supported the last. Your entire post can be dismissed as drivel inseparable from the ramblings of a mad man.

If you don't account for the fallacies you keep repeating, then you are being evasive and obfuscating in response to others.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

What does pointing how that 'spiritual truth' is pleaded as a qualification without explanation, have to do with whether or not your arguing for god to exist?

I'm not ..

You didn't answer the question, I'm reporting you for not answering the question. You're being purposefully evasive and trolling, which is against the rules of the forum.

Quote

Quote

Are you saying that you get to make up terms, as if they needed to be examined and considered, without ever telling anyone what they mean, how you determined their veracity, or anything else about them?

Is that what you think constitutes a valid argument for anything?

I am certainly saying that there's merit in considering this system,

There is nothing to consider, you won't expand on the terms you make up random, they are simply inserted in the form of a fallacy without explanation. You cannot then claim that they are consistent, meaningful, or part of any axiom.. there is nothing they follow from or too.

Where is your consistency? How are you axioms logical? What axioms? How did you determine any of them to be true? What is 'spiritual truth'? How did you determine 'spiritual truth'?

Over and over and over and over.. Bullshit flows out of your mouth and you dodge/equivocate when asked to be responsible.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

That in itself is contradictory, how is anyone means of 'knowing' compatible with a different means of 'knowing'?

So, this is an important point. Do you think there could be any different method for finding out about the world other than in controlled experiments?

Quote

Quote

But, what if

Begging the questions; can you demonstrate a means to determine truth using a differing epistemology or not?

Quote

I believe the scientific method and a spiritual epistemology

Begging the question: What is a spiritual epistemology?

How did you determine it?

Your 'belief' is irrelevant, a blank assertion of a vague determination you've made with no explanation.

Quote

babbling preaching

You're not even arguing for anything or answering the questions you want answered, the rest of your post offers no argument that can be understood or even logic that follows into any conclusions. You plead a new term and base everything upon what you plead into existence, then offer nothing to support it anymore then you supported the last. Your entire post can be dismissed as drivel inseparable from the ramblings of a mad man.

If you don't account for the fallacies you keep repeating, then you are being evasive and obfuscating in response to others.

I'm afraid the "babbling preaching" is the answer to your question. Again, I'm begging the question all over the place because the point is not to prove "there is another spiritual epistemology that can give knowledge about the world," but rather to establish that such a thing could be. Once that is established, the door is open for you to find out whether my (it's not really mine) spiritual epistemology is predictive or not. But, no one can show it to you. It's not that kind of epistemology. You still will not find a proof here that God exists. Are you surprised by that?

That in itself is contradictory, how is anyone means of 'knowing' compatible with a different means of 'knowing'?

So, this is an important point. Do you think there could be any different method for finding out about the world other than in controlled experiments?

How is anyone means of knowing compatible witha different means of knowing?

What I think is irrelevant, all that is relevant is whether or not you can actually demonstrate a means of knowing compatible with a different means of knowing. Once you demonstrate one, I no longer have to guess, I have an instant answer at my finger tips.

So instead of answering my question with a question, why not actually demonstrate an alternate means of knowing. You know, argue for the burden of proof that your claim has... you know.. using logic.

Quote

I'm afraid the "babbling preaching" is the answer to your question. Again, I'm begging the question all over the place because

You're begging the question because you are not making any claim that carries an informative contextual basis. Pleading the term 'spiritual truth' doesn't tell me what spiritual truth is or how it is determined, the only thing I have to work from is that you made it up at random and because you expect me to consider 'spiritual truth' at all.. requires me to understand what it is and how it was determined.

Like I said before, do you expect others to participate in a discussion where you get to make up anything you wish without explanation of what it is much less why it is?

This is what you're doing right now, none of it is consistent and none of it logically follows because it carries zero explanatory power.

Quote

Once that is established

Great, using basic logic, convey in english words an argument to establish that one exists.

Quote

the door is open for

No it isn't, I have no basis to work from and nothing of any consistent informative context. I have a series of blank assertions, often with no relationship to each other, cited without explanation, and any request or inquiry for clarification is met with obfuscation and denial.

This is what I have now.

How does that open the door to convey any information to anything?

Quote

you to find out whether my (it's not really mine) spiritual epistemology is predictive or not.

See above, without any meaningful consistent claim, your argument cannot even be understood much less be an applicable means to establish any truth.

At the moment how does one determine your claims from make believe?

Quote

But, no one can show it to you. It's not that kind of epistemology.

This is a massive logical contradiction; its a means of knowing, that no one can show to you, that you can't convey to be known, and I can't know it unless I know it. You've gone full circle in your insanity.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Exactly right. What I'm saying does not prove God exists any more than it proves Santa exists. Just because my system is self-consistent doesn't mean it's true. But can we agree that a system where God exists and you can't see God is self-consistent?

Are you willing to consider an alternate epistemology?You’ve lived your scientific and working life relying on a method for discovering truth—-the scientific method. You’ve come to rely on it to lead to predictive conclusions. But, what if there are additional ways of discovering truth—-alternate epistemologies-—that are equally reliable? Is that so inconsistent with your experience? Is there precedent for such things?

The scientific method did not arise on its own. It developed over centuries in the hands of great minds such at Aristotle, Ibn Al-Haytham and Rene Descartes. By the end of the European Renaissance, the scientific method was firmly established as the method by which scientists of all kinds found access to predictive truths. It was Auguste Comte that forwarded the idea that the scientific method is the only method for discovering truth. This is referred to as positivism. But, faith in the scientific method does not, by itself, preclude other methods of seeking truth. The fact that you’re holding a hammer doesn’t make everything a nail.

I’m going to discuss this with a parallel from the world of physics (fizix!). About the same time Descartes and Comte were rewriting philosophy and sociology, Newtonian physics was supplanting Aristotelian mechanics as the most reliable explanation of the physical world. For centuries to follow, scientists of all kinds built a vast and glorious scientific edifice on this foundation. Newtonian physics conquered on its merits. It was a more predictive system for describing the world.

Then came the Michelson-Morley experiment. The discovery that the speed of light is constant from any vantage point was in direct contradiction to Newton. Imagine traveling on a train and shining a flashlight straight ahead of you. If, to you, the light travels 300 million meters per second, then someone standing stationary next to the track should, according to Newton, see the light travel at 300 million meters/sec plus the speed of the train. As demonstrated by Michelson and Morley, this is not what happens. Both observers see the light travel at the same constant speed. It was clear, at least here on the fringes of physics, that Newtonian physics was inconsistent with observation.

Einstein’s special relativity restores sanity to our world view. Einstein sought and found an explanation of the universe that a) allowed for a constant speed of light in all frames of reference and b) reduced to familiar Newtonian mechanics at speeds much slower than the speed of light. Special relativity is not a band-aid on Newtonian physics that applies in certain situations. It is a fundamental rethinking of the nature of space and time. Newtonian mechanics is a subset of relativistic mechanics that applies in a subset of situations. Most of human experience is in this “subset,” but it’s an important distinction.

I believe the scientific method and a spiritual epistemology fit together in the same way. Our world is, in fact, a spiritual one just as it’s a special relativistic one. The spiritual explanation of the world is the right one. Your soul is eternal. There is a God who guides the universe. At the same time, science, as discovered via the scientific method, describes the world accurately in most situations, as Newtonian mechanics is right and predictive in most aspects of our life. Someone who doesn’t see the spiritual nature of the universe can be forgiven just like Newton can be forgiven for misinterpreting the nature of space and time and missing the special relativistic nature of the universe. He hadn’t made the observations that led to special relativity just as you have not had the experiences that lead to faith.

Yes but that boils down to an argument from ignorance.

I can deviate from scientific method. What I do not deviate from is reason/logic for essential questions of "is this real"

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

If our spiritual epistemology tells us God is real, it must also explain why we don’t see Him.

Ah, “spiritual epistemology”. So, your god is as real as any other god. Which means it’s not real at all. I’m seeing solipsism coming up fast.

Quote

I have found what I regard as a satisfactory answer to this. I think it is inescapable that God wishes not to be seen. But he must have a reason for wishing so. It begins with an understanding of faith. In the Bible, faith is described as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” It’s easy to see that, if God were visibly present in your life, you could not have faith in Him. That is not to say you wouldn’t need faith in Him. I mean only that it’s impossible to have faith, according to the scriptural definition, in something that is seen. So, one reason for God to remain hidden is to enable us to have faith.

Funny how this excuse wasn’t needed back in the OT and NT. They didn’t need to make up that God suddenly cared so much about “faith”. Heck, JC and God went out of their way to show off how miracle max they were. But as people doubted, then God suddenly gets more coy. That happens with all gods when they are shown to be impotent, be useless and to not exist.

Quote

That seems very silly circular logic if you think the only reason for faith is to gain access to truths about God, heaven and our eternal nature. But, faith is a principle of power. Having and exercising faith in things that are not seen empowers us to master ourselves and become more like God. The process of hoping and waiting on the Lord in faith strengthens the part of us that has access to spiritual truths. Weight training would seem equally silly if you thought the purpose of lifting the barbell is to put it back on the rack. It’s only when you understand the principles behind building muscles that the whole process makes sense.

How is faith a principle of power? There is nothing about it does anything like you claim, to supposedly “master ourselves” or become more like God. Incidentally, what is God like, FG? You claim you wont’ show evidence that he exists but you certainly claim to know all lot about it. So you must have evidence right? Or you are just one more theists sadly proclaiming that you and you alone know this “god” and what it wants. And what are ‘spiritual truths’, FG? Again, we have claims of truth, but no evidence supporting such.

Quote

One important extension of this is the conclusion that a person is (morally) more than the sum of his or her knowledge. This probably comes as no surprise. Two people with identical knowledge of God can be at vastly different levels when it comes to living in harmony with His teachings. And, this is not limited to spiritual knowledge. Atheists as well have all sorts of principles in their head which they do not, and indeed I would say cannot, adhere to. Knowing a principle and applying that principle are two very different things.

Wow, more useless woo and more baseless claims. It sure must be fun to think you are the only person in the universe that has soemthign right, even with no evidence at all. And here we go with claims of knowledge of God again. Wow, they aren’t any different from any other theist. What are God’s teachings, FG? Are they to kill homosexuals? Kill people working on “Sabbaths”? Or are they to give up all you have to follow him and to break up families? I’m sure you’ll only want to follow what you think this god “really” meant, and not surprisingly, this God agrees with you and doesn’t want you to bother yourself with things that are inconvenient. Then you finish with more nonsense about atheists. Just what “principles” do you think are in our heads that we can’t or won’t adhere to?

Quote

An introduction to faith requires a few words of warning. A spiritual epistemology will embarrass you. It’s meant to be visible only to the sincere seeker.

Wow, the classic crap of a charlatan. oooh, only those who already believe will see the “truth”. What circular garbage. Only a sincere seeker will see your crap and a sincere seeker is defined by being able to see your crap. Sorry, dear, but I am a sincere seeker and I know bullshit when I see it. It’s the same nonsense spread by every theist and woo master. You all say the pathetically same thing. And none of you can actually show you are right. No, you come up with excuses. I have prayed for revelation. And I've never got one single bit of it. So your magic spell fails. Now what's your excuse? Isn't the Great Pumpkin finding me "sincere" enough? How can I know? Hhow can you know?

« Last Edit: July 20, 2011, 02:23:08 PM by velkyn »

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

I keep getting the feeling that you are trying to equate Newtonian Physics and Special Relativity to your "alternate epistemology" and Science, as equal ways of understanding different parts of the world. But your analogy is failing you.

Because Newtonian physics is wrong.

It's just simply wrong.

And before you ask "Why do we still use it" - Because it's close enough for common usage, and simpler to use. The ideal would be for it to be dropped completely and the understanding we now have overwritting what is left of Newton, but the new formulas are impractical when the increase in precision is so low for the scale on which we would normally use it.

You are correct in equating them, but for the wrong reason. Both Newton's stuff and your "alternate epistemology" are superfluous "ways of knowing" that cannot support themselves in relation to reality. Newton's stuff has an advantage, however. It still gets results within an acceptable margin of error. Your "alternate epistemology" predicts nothing and accounts for nothing. Therefore it is, quite simply, worth nothing.

Logged

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

You have asked members here if they would acknowledge that there may be an alternative method (apart from the Scientific Method) of gaining access to the 'truth'.

If you are claiming that you have knowledge of such a technique can you demonstrate how this process could deliver a similar level of objectivity to the SM.

Even when people arrive at a 'truth' using this algorithm how do they 'know' when they have got there that this is the absolute 'truth'. It could have been just chance or like a stopped clock that is 100% accurate twice a day.

And if a person has found a 'truth' and 'knows' it as such and that person cannot demonstrate that to anybody else what use is that?

I tend to agree that you need to provide some explanation of an "alternate method" along your line of thought. Those responding to you have little to go on if you cannot provide some base line to think from.

An introduction to faith requires a few words of warning. A spiritual epistemology will embarrass you. It’s meant to be visible only to the sincere seeker.______________________________________________________________________________________

So it is just like Voodoo, or the Great Pumpkin? This is an appeal to ignorance, circular reasoning, and No true Scottsman, and implied special pleading all within 26 words. The concentration of fallacy is pretty high.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.